AUTH/2306/3/10: Pharmacist v Pfizer — discussion of generic losartan price before MA (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2306/3/10
Parties	Pharmacist v Pfizer
Issue	Alleged promotion of unlicensed generic losartan via discussion of price/marketing authorisation status
Applicable Code year	2008
Clauses considered	3.1, 9.1 and 15.2
Complaint received	29 March 2010
Case completed	2 July 2010
Appeal	No appeal
Outcome	No breach
Key evidence point	Panel found no evidence the price list was provided to the complainant; complaint focused on a specific face-to-face interaction

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

📋

⌄

A pharmacist complained that a Pfizer commercial account manager discussed the price of losartan in early February 2010 when it was not yet available as a generic, and said Pfizer did not yet have a licence (marketing authorisation) as it was still in the application process.
Pfizer said the only discussion about losartan’s marketing authorisation was with a named buyer (not the complainant) and that a price list for current and forthcoming generic products was emailed to some buyers on 2 February 2010.
Pfizer received the marketing authorisation for losartan on 8 February 2010 (four days after the 4 February call described by Pfizer).
The Panel considered that a price list can be exempt from “promotion” only if it concerns licensed medicines; this price list included unlicensed generic losartan, so it could not rely on the exemption and could be subject to the Code if sent to health professionals/appropriate administrative staff.
However, the complaint related to a specific face-to-face interaction with the named account manager; the complainant did not refer to an email/price list, and Pfizer did not know the complainant’s identity.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled on the basis of the evidence available.
The Panel stated that discussion of forthcoming medicines could be subject to the Code (i.e., it did not accept Pfizer’s argument that such discussions were outside the Code).
The Panel found no evidence that the price list had been provided to the complainant and noted the complainant had the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access